The whale’s influence on the Uniswap regime is once again the subject of heated debate when Harvard’s blockchain group threw huge amounts of voting power behind its own proposal.
ProposalCreated on May 27 by the Harvard Law School Blockchain and Fintech Initiative, is for the creation of a fund that will finance existing and new political groups against regulation to create crypto policy and protect decentralized finance.
The proposed fund will have a chest of 1–1.5 million UNIs, valued at approximately $ 28 million to $ 42 million at current prices. At the time of writing Harvard Law, the BFI has promised to vote 10.46 million UNI tokens or 99% in favor of the proposal. So far, only 766,460 votes have been cast against it.
Industry observer and critic of centralized governance, Chris Blake of Defy Watch, was one of the first to comment on the heavily weighted voting system.
4 @HarvardLawBFI A group of lawyers voted just 10.45m UNI in favor of their own proposal to pay 1.5m UNI from the treasury.
His vote is 99.9% of the “yes” votes so far.
– Chris Blake (@ChrisBlec) 27 May, 2021
The “Here We Go Again” quip refers to Uniswap’s first governance vote in October 2020, which was proposed by the trading platform Dharma to lower the threshold for submission of proposals. Would have proposed The top two token holders get the majority of the voting power. (Religion and the Blockchain Simulation Platform Gauntlet). Both of them dominated the ballot with their own heavy bags, which led to the question of Uniswap’s rule, however, the vote was defeated by a small margin.
The lobbying fund, if passed, would have four primary goals according to Harvard, including educating policy makers to avoid regulatory, legal, political, and tax threats to DIFI, the other Achieving regulatory clarity for DeFi related activities. The third goal would be to advance laws that support DIFI and decentralized governance, and ultimately encourage the governance communities of other DIFI protocols to contribute to the effort.
Harvard Law BFI responded by stating That it was only natural for him to vote for his own motion, he said:
“Additionally, we have this voting power from UNI holders who gave us their vote (which they are free to withdraw at any time).”
It added that there were enough votes to make the snapshot proposal, but it cannot be obtained unilaterally through consensus scrutiny without a majority.
At the moment the proposal is in “temperature check” mode, meaning it requires a minimum of 25,000 UNIs in support, which it already has. To pass a full resolution after the “consensus investigation” phase, a quorum of 40 million UNIs is required in its favor.